Women and Their Independence

I think that there was a major issue in a Thousand Splendid Suns concerning women and their independence.  I had such a problem with Nana's inability to function and be happy without a man.  Yes he was a jerk but she needed to get over it and face society and be there for her daughter.  It would have been hard, but she definitely could have done it.  Part of the problem though was the society that they lived in.  They oppressed women, and still do, to the point that they thought the most important thing in life was to be married and have children. That is just so wrong to me because there is so much more out there.  What bothers me even more is that there are so many people out there, not just in the  Middle East but also in America, who think the same way.  Some of these people are even women and they think that there is nothing else for them but a husband and children.  I am not saying that being a housewife is bad but that not realizing that there are other choices out there is.  I bet plenty of women are housewives because they think that there is nothing better for them to be or aspire for.  They do not need a man to survive and be happy.  All women should know that they can be independent and that there is nothing wrong with being independent. Nana seemed to not know this, which was part of her problem.  She was just so bitter about her situation that she couldn't even consider that she could over come it.

Society and It's Ethics

I want to talk about number thirteen of the socratic seminar questions for A Doll House. The question was "What is the difference between the ethical codes for men and women in the society portrayed in the drama?"  Obviously, there are some big gender gaps in this story. Nora is expected to stay home and take care of the children.  Her husband doesn't want her to have to work, and many women who do work are looked down upon in society. Helmer is meant to be the bread winner of the family and make all the decisions with their money.  In this family in particular, there is a role play type of situation in which Nora pretends to be a perfect little angel but in reality, she is not.  They never talk of anything serious as if Helmer thinks that Nora is too stupid or innocent to ever even think of such matters. It was not okay for her to borrow money or have any involvement in the business world at all.  It was an ethic code of their society just as today many people still think that women should stay at home and take care of the children and cook and clean and make their husband happy. Of course we are breaking out of this, just as Nora did by leaving, but there are plenty of men who still want to suppress women into these roles.  It really saddens me that we are not past this by now, though I do realize that these ideas could still be around for maybe a hundred more years.
In the Awakening, we do see a woman, Edna, break out of her societal constraints, or at least try.  Just like Nora, Edna tried to escape the expectations and ethical codes that society was pushing at her. In my opinion she was unsuccessful and felt that the only way she could get away was to end it.  She was not successful as Nora was because she did not find a way to leave.  I think that in our society everyone has certain social constraints, not just women.  Women do have it especially hard with being expected to look and act certain ways but other groups have it hard as well.  Ethnic groups such as African Americans or Latinos are seen as certain way in society.  It's not right, but that is how it is.  Some find a way to get past these expectations, but many don't and live with them their whole lives.  Also, a big controversy in our county is gay marriage and homosexuality.  Our society has always tried to push these people into "normalcy" but currently more and more are pushing out of this expectation and making their views and wants public which is awesome. I admire anyone who openly pushes at society's constraints. But anyway, in conclusion, Nora and Edna are both women who tried to escape society's ideas for them.  Nora succeeded and Edna did not. This is how society is today as well. Some break society's expectations and rules while some stay behind these lines. I think there will always be some sort of societal expectation and that there will always be people trying to be individuals.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

A problem was brought forth in The Challenge of Cultural Relativism saying that this theory cannot be applied to certain things such as the earth being flat or spherical. If one culture believe the earth was flat but we believe that it is spherical, can we actually overlook that and say that there is both right and wrong in these beliefs? We now for a fact that the earth is spherical. I don't think this theory is meant to be applied to situations such as the previous, but moreover moral situations such as shown with the Greeks and the Callations.  Every culture has a different belief system which has different moral traits. Yes, there may be one truth out there that is the only thing that is right, but there is no way of knowing what that could be, so there is faith. Each culture puts their faith in their beliefs and to them, they are right because they believe that their truth is the only truth. In Things Fall Apart, many people would see the cultures marital practices as wrong, but according to their culture, they would see ours as wrong.  Right now even, there is the question of gay marriage. So many people claim it is wrong based on their belief system, but others have their own set of moral guidelines that allow such a thing. People need to be more open minded to see the difference in everyone's ideas and beliefs. So many problems have arisen throughout history because of this. I'm sure that the Greeks and the Callations despised each other only because of their burial rituals. They probably fought wars over it, just as there have been religious wars in the Middle East for centuries. If everyone were to apply this theory of understanding and tolerance towards other religions and cultures, we would not have so many problems in the world. Of course you can't force the theory onto scientific fact, such as the world being round, but there should still be an understanding that each culture can believe what it wants. We cannot condemn other beliefs or cultures merely because they are different.
Now, I'm not saying that you can just let terrible acts of inhumanity go because a certain group of people believes in something.  Take the Nazis for example.  Most people would agree that what they did was terrible and wrong, but the Nazis thought they were doing a great thing. Here is where the Theory gets blurry. I think that the solution is to say that groups and cultures that believe one thing should not be forcing their beliefs on others, and if they do, we should be allowed to stop them. Christians have always been forcing their religion on others for years and years as have other religions. This is wrong, even though they do it in the name of "God."  The people being repressed should have the right to push them away and refuse their beliefs.  Again with the current situation of gay marriage, many say that people are trying to force homosexuality into society, but in fact, it has been here for ages. They are not forcing their beliefs on anyone else, they are not forcing  others to be gay, so society has no right to fight them off. I'm not entirely certain if any of this made sense or if I was rambling, but hopefully, I got my point across.

Hamlet's Sanity

A big controversy in the play Hamlet is the question of Hamlet's sanity. Many people believe that in his faking of a psychotic breakdown, he actually went crazy. There is evidence in the play of this as he kills Polonius without considering the act at all. He seems to irrationally act, though throughout the previous parts of the play, he was known to act rationally. Many would say this is the perfect example to prove true insanity in Hamlet.
Others think that he never really was crazy. They reason that he felt that he had to kill Polonius to completely sell his insanity. Another theory that is present is that Hamlet got too in character and had difficulty pulling himself out of the mindset of psychotic behavior. I know that there are plenty of actors and actresses that go through this after they finish a movie production. They get so into character that their mind begins to believe that they are this person. A perfect example is Heath Ledger. He portrayed The Joker in The Dark Night. The character of The Joker was psychotic and could be seen as mentally unstable. It is believed by many that part of Heath Ledgers health decomposition before his death was due to the lingering character of the Joker. He had trouble coming out of character which led to sleepless nights, instability, and drug use. It is very similar to Hamlet, as he could not escape the character he was playing.
This is the stance that I would take on the subject. At first Hamlet was perfectly sane and rational. The thought out his whole plan and was prepared to execute it with perfection but did not take into account the possibility of forgetting who he really was. I think the death of Polonius was his turning point. He may have been attempting to sell is ruse once and for all, but even so, this is when he slipped completely into insanity.  However, I think he pulled out of it slightly at the end as he was dying of poison. I think he realized that he had gone too deep and should have taken care of his uncle sooner, rather than later.

Heros

This past month in class we talked a lot about heroes and what a hero is.  Several questions were given such as what characteristics a hero must have and where our archetypes for heroes came from.  Personally, I think that most of us have gotten our ideas of what a hero should be from superhero movies and comics. We have all grown up with that kind of media surrounding us and it has just taken hold.  All of these heroes have some sort of super power or quality that puts them above the common people.  They also do good deeds in the community as well as fight the "evil."  Most people think that for there to be a hero, a person must have done some good deeds, have something over others (like a superpower), and be a generally good person.  I feel like there are so many people out there who think that all it takes is a good deed, but I don't agree at all. To see someone as a hero, I think that they also need to have the right motives for what they are doing. Everyone says Beowulf is a great hero all throughout history. However, I don't think we are told enough about Beowulf's personality or mindset to really make this decision.  He may have only ever gone to fight Grendel and the dragon for his personal gain.  After all, during that time period, a goal in life was to have your name remembered in death.  I'm not saying that he wasn't a hero, I just don't think that we should decide from his actions alone.  The storyteller or whoever wrote Beowulf's story may very well have intended him to be a hero, but left out more about his character and motives.  The people of that time would have seen this story as heroism because then, Beowulf's actions were how they perceived it.  A lot of it also deals with perspective.  The people of whom Beowulf ruled over may have seen him as a hero, but Grendel would not have, as well as myself.  It just really bothers me sometimes how so many people are so quick to make someone into a hero.

Individualism in Society Today

During Socratic Seminar for The Fountainhead,  a question was raised about whether or not our society could work with the individualistic philosophy that Ayn Rand showed through Howard Roark. Theoretically, the idea seems as though it would work very well. Every person would be going after what they want to live up to the best they can be rather than having their abilities hindered by others. It all seems well intended and good until you think of human nature. We are a selfish people and there is that instinct to always be better than everyone else, kind of like Peter Keating. He always needed to feel as if he was better than everyone else, especially Roark. I think that that is how most of society feels too.  So if we tried to combine the two, individualism and human nature, society would go nowhere because people would be focusing on everyone else around them, rather than themselves which is what Rand's philosophy details.
In The Fountainhead, this philosophy worked for Roark because he was the only one who followed it. The rest of his society were collectivists who focused on the whole of society instead of themselves. Another reason it worked for him was because Rand made him follow her philosophy strictly. He was "the perfect man" in Rand's eyes and almost seeming inhuman because he didn't follow any of the normal human flaws such as greed and jealousy. But again, humans are not like Roark, so this philosophy could not work.
Right now the 2012 presidential election is going on. Republicans and Democrats each have a sort of stereotype that the other party has linked to them. I feel as though Republicans are affiliated with a more individualistic nature, or at least that is what the stereotype shows. I think they look out for themselves more than anyone else with their big business and tax cuts for the rich. This is just an example of how an individualist society wouldn't work. Republicans are looking out for themselves, or a select few instead of the society s a whole. They may say that what they do benefits society as a whole, but there is little proof to that. The GOP candidates were all big business men who, at a glance, seemed as though they were focusing on themselves to improve society when, if you look deeper, you can see that they are only damaging society with their selfishness and greed. I know all Republicans aren't this way and don't believe in this but this is just how many people, Liberals especially, see them. Like I said before, the human characteristics get in the way of what the philosophy could become.
I do think, however, that certain aspects of this philosophy could be used successfully. For example, everyone should try to be the best that they can be, but I also think that the people around you need to be taken into consideration too. As a society we cannot just ignore those around us who do not have the capability to support themselves, even if they are being the best they can be. It is morally wrong. Imagine how many people with disabilities or mental handicaps there are in this world, and in the US alone. If every single person followed Rand's philosophy, then these people would be left to suffer. It is just not plausible. But if each person tried to be their best, while looking out for others and thinking about society, then we could move forward be so much. I think we would be so much more advanced if everyone just tried their best and did not take advantage of others. But, alas, this will never happen because of how our society has set itself up.